Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• O-Trap

  

  Gblock;689750 wrote:well i still have to pay my bills when i dont have money...i cant call the electric company and say hey i wont be paying this month...my doctor doesnt slash his prices just cause im struggling, neither did my lawyer. i have to find the money somewhere. if there is no money to be paid how can i negotiate?

  They have to pay their obligations as well, which is probably why it is wise for them not to lock themselves into a financial contractual obligation to pay something they cannot afford to pay (which is what many districts have been forced to do). The difference with you is, you're able to find money elsewhere with things like odd jobs, weekend jobs, summer jobs, selling things, etc. The district doesn't really have the option of doing some private enterprise work on the side to suppliment their funds.
• jmog

  Gblock;689750 wrote:well i still have to pay my bills when i dont have money...i cant call the electric company and say hey i wont be paying this month...my doctor doesnt slash his prices just cause im struggling, neither did my lawyer. i have to find the money somewhere. if there is no money to be paid how can i negotiate?

  
  The problem is, if the district has no money, and the union won't make enough concessions, teachers get laid off, period.
• LJ

  

  It really frightens me that people think that you cannot negotiate employment terms on your own.
• Gblock

  i do get it....im not scared to negotiate for myself but your silly if you think that by definition my position will be improved by negotiating alone. i do see both sides. i am willing to make concessions. but to say i cant collective bargain shows me they arent willing to fairly negotiate. why cant they send a proposal and negotiate with the union if changes need to be made? if you say ok we sent them a proposal and they refused and then you want to take the steps in this bill that is one thing. but to come out before any proposals have been made to outlaw collective bargaining to me that is unconstitutional. i think unions also recognize and may be willing to accept changes. all unions arent the same.
• Gblock

  jmog;689847 wrote:The problem is, if the district has no money, and the union won't make enough concessions, teachers get laid off, period.

  
  they havent given them a chance to make concessions
• wkfan

  Manhattan Buckeye;689459 wrote:The firm I was with went from $122K to $105K for first years, "bonuses" were non-existent last year. Salary compression has made promotion increases next to nothing. Non-equity people could have possibly made $200K in a good year with bonus (I never did, came close in '07), now it is capped at about $150K. Many of the "equity" people are pulling in less than $125K. I had lunch with a former co-worker on Monday....she billed approx. 800 hours in '10. She's not worried about her job since she has her own arrangement (read, less than $100K comp., even though she's a "partner") but there isn't a single person in the firm making more than they did in '07. There simply isn't work, a couple of my former juniors are trying to branch off into immigration practice to maintain some reasonable billing goal, and the firm is promoting everyone to "partner" for marketing reasons even though it is partner in name only. Everyone from the class of '03 made partner this year, and I'm guessing they are being compensated 20% less than they were as a Sr. associate.

  
  Huh....I gess the topic of salary is all relative.......
  
  Your 'first year associates' are making $105,000 with no bonus. More than likely just out of law school...3 years removed from undergrad.
  
  Starting teacher salary in my district with a Master's Degree and no experience is $43,734 also with no bonus.....with a Master's degree and no experience, likely 2 years out of undergrad. The max is $94,815 with a Masters Degree, 45 additional graduate hours (a PhD without the thesis) and 28 years on the job.
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;689861 wrote:they havent given them a chance to make concessions

  
  The concession being sought is to eliminate collective bargaining. You have that chance now.
  
  Contracts by their pure nature adhere parties to terms. The State as an employer no longer wants to be forced to adhere to terms. Many of the taxpayers would rather that be the case also.
• LJ

  

  Gblock;689860 wrote:i do get it....im not scared to negotiate for myself but your silly if you think that by definition my position will be improved by negotiating alone. i do see both sides. i am willing to make concessions. but to say i cant collective bargain shows me they arent willing to fairly negotiate. why cant they send a proposal and negotiate with the union if changes need to be made? if you say ok we sent them a proposal and they refused and then you want to take the steps in this bill that is one thing. but to come out before any proposals have been made to outlaw collective bargaining to me that is unconstitutional. i think unions also recognize and may be willing to accept changes. all unions arent the same.

  
  Collective bargaining makes everyone the same. When you negotiate on your own terms it rewards the better employees and punishes the bad employees. The world needs Gods and Clods.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  wkfan;689866 wrote:Huh....I gess the topic of salary is all relative.......
  
  Your 'first year associates' are making $105,000 with no bonus. More than likely just out of law school...3 years removed from undergrad.
  
  Starting teacher salary in my district with a Master's Degree and no experience is $43,734 also with no bonus.....with a Master's degree and no experience, likely 2 years out of undergrad. The max is $94,815 with a Masters Degree, 45 additional graduate hours (a PhD without the thesis) and 28 years on the job.

  
  Would you trade 28 years on the job for approximately 3 and a half? That's about the average lifespan of a jr. associate at a Vault 50 firm. Many leave by choice, particularly women when they realize there is no way they can properly be a mother and be on call 24/7 working for nice guys like me, recently many more leave not by choice. In my father's 41 years of teaching he never had to deal with a colleague coming in to his classroom in tears because they just lost their job and are $150,000 in debt in student loans. It is a very unpleasant experience.
• LJ

  

  Anyways, apparently it's all moot and they will allow for collective bargaining, but striking will not be allowed.
  
  http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/24/copy/state-workers-get-back-somesay.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
  
  I think striking is ridiculous to begin with. Asinine that you can refuse to come to work because you want something and the employer can't fire you. If you don't like it, find another job, otherwise STFU and go to work like the rest of the country.
• O-Trap

  

  Gblock;689860 wrote:but to come out before any proposals have been made to outlaw collective bargaining to me that is unconstitutional.

  Given that you have presented yourself with grace and clarity in this topic (I'm not being sarcastic), I'm afraid I don't understand what would be unconstitutional about it. Again, though my wife works as a teacher, I've never personally been a public employee, so an element of constitutional law that covers that kind of topic is just something across which I never would have run.
  

  wkfan;689866 wrote:Huh....I gess the topic of salary is all relative.......

  
  Very much so. I remember posting some stats about non-collective bargaining states in terms of salary. While all five of them are (to my recollection) in the bottom half in terms of average salary, they're all in the top half when factoring cost of living into the equation (two of them were even in the top 10).
  
  It's very relative. $45,000 is a LOT of money for a starting salary in Ohio. It's not in New York, though. Same with different occupations.
• Gblock

  i could live with collective bargaining for salary and benefits only
• Gblock

  O-Trap;689878 wrote:Given that you have presented yourself with grace and clarity in this topic (I'm not being sarcastic), I'm afraid I don't understand what would be unconstitutional about it. Again, though my wife works as a teacher, I've never personally been a public employee, so an element of constitutional law that covers that kind of topic is just something across which I never would have run.
  
  
  
  Very much so. I remember posting some stats about non-collective bargaining states in terms of salary. While all five of them are (to my recollection) in the bottom half in terms of average salary, they're all in the top half when factoring cost of living into the equation (two of them were even in the top 10).
  
  It's very relative. $45,000 is a LOT of money for a starting salary in Ohio. It's not in New York, though. Same with different occupations.

  
  its not alot of money if you live in columbus
• LJ

  

  wkfan;689866 wrote:Huh....I gess the topic of salary is all relative.......
  
  Your 'first year associates' are making $105,000 with no bonus. More than likely just out of law school...3 years removed from undergrad.
  
  Starting teacher salary in my district with a Master's Degree and no experience is $43,734 also with no bonus.....with a Master's degree and no experience, likely 2 years out of undergrad. The max is $94,815 with a Masters Degree, 45 additional graduate hours (a PhD without the thesis) and 28 years on the job.

  
  And veterinarians spend 8 years in school, go $200k in debt and average around $88k per year at the height of their careers. Boo freaking hoo. Choose another profession if you don't like it. That is what makes htis country great.
• LJ

  

  Gblock;689882 wrote:its not alot of money if you live in columbus

  
  While not "a lot" of money, it surly is a comfortable amount for a 22 year old single income single person in Columbus.
• Gblock

  LJ;689889 wrote:While not "a lot" of money, it surly is a comfortable amount for a 22 year old single income single person in Columbus.

  
  well those are two different statements. that is comfortable if your 22 and single. if your 40 with a family and want to buy a house and pay for daycare it's not. and under no circumstances should the LOT have been in capital letters imo
• Gblock

  if you 22 you will make about max of 36,000
• LJ

  

  Gblock;689892 wrote:well those are two different statements. that is comfortable if your 22 and single. if your 40 with a family and want to buy a house and pay for daycare it's not. and under no circumstances should the LOT have been in capital letters imo

  
  I know people who own houses and raise families on $50k in Columbus just fine, they don't live in the ghetto either.
• LJ

  

  Gblock;689893 wrote:if you 22 you will make about max of 36,000

  
  That is still pretty damn good starting salary for 4 years of undergrad and 22 years old. A buddy of mine works for a private charter school and makes $32k and lives in Bexley and drives a brand new car. He seems to be doing just fine.
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;689892 wrote:well those are two different statements. that is comfortable if your 22 and single. if your 40 with a family and want to buy a house and pay for daycare it's not. and under no circumstances should the LOT have been in capital letters imo

  
  You seem to focus a lot on your expenses when rationalizing what you should be compensated. An employer doesn't look at a person's expenses when determining their value. When we hire someone what their expenses are is irrelevant to me. Their value to the company and the supply of labor in their discipline is what's important in determining their salary.
• Gblock

  LJ;689899 wrote:That is still pretty damn good starting salary for 4 years of undergrad and 22 years old. A buddy of mine works for a private charter school and makes $32k and lives in Bexley and drives a brand new car. He seems to be doing just fine.

  
  i never said it wasnt...just trying to give accurate info...you dont make 45000 at 22....and i was just saying 45000 isnt A LOT...also you raised your salary to 50000....all your statements alter the comment i originally commented on
• Gblock

  Con_Alma;689900 wrote:You seem to focus a lot on your expenses when rationally what you should be compensated. An employer doesn't look at a person expenses when determining their value. When we hire someone what their expenses are is irrelevant to me. Their value to the company and the supply of labor in their discipline is what's important in determining their salary.

  
  actually all i was saying is its not A LOT with capital letters money if you have a house and kids and a family. are you starving no, are you making more than some people yes are you making less than some people yes, but by no means is 45000 A LOT imo
• LJ

  

  Gblock;689903 wrote:i never said it wasnt...just trying to give accurate info...you dont make 45000 at 22....and i was just saying 45000 isnt A LOT...also you raised your salary to 50000....all your statements alter the comment i originally commented on

  
  With tax credits, someone raising a family on $45k would be nearly the same as someone making $50k. But I don't personally know anyone making $45k and rasing a family. I am merely commenting on the statements orig. given. That it's not "a lot" but comfortable, and that in WK's distrcit, starting salary is "Starting teacher salary in my district with a Master's Degree and no experience is $43,734 also with no bonus"
• Con_Alma

  gblock
  
  I was referring to the context of several posts regarding your expenses and how the were included in your comments.
• stlouiedipalma

  http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/republican_changes_would_allow.html
  
  From what I read, the proposed change only allows collective bargaining for wages, with no strikes and no binding arbitration. Not exactly the breakthrough as was initially reported.